The one argument he put forth in this preview is the notion that some things appear to be made by an intelligent designer. This seems quite obviously flawed to me, because if we assume that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, then that means that we are by definition unable to observe anything which was NOT created by this designer. Since our notion of something 'seeming to be created by an intelligence' is clearly a relative one (you need to compare it to something which does NOT seem this way), then it is not applicable to our situation. You can't use a relative term to describe all of reality it is possible for us to experience.

What really pisses me off, though, is Stein's use of 'free speech' in this. It's not about 'free speech', this is science, not literature. Say whatever the f*** you want in fantasy and fiction, but when it comes to science, it's a harsh world. If your science is bullshit, be ready to have it criticized to hell and back.

Now, on that note, I personally strongly object to any sort of alienation because of an article containing 'unorthodox' ideas. However, I think Stein is misrepresenting what has happened here. The article didn't cause a stir because it was about an unusual idea, it caused a stir because it was inherently fallacious (like I explained above), and the guy who ran it in his magazine fell for it, publishing it as if it were legitimate.

There is no evidence to support intelligence design yet, and evolution is one of science's most successful theories. It is, for all intents and purposes, fact.

Quote Originally Posted by SolSkye View Post
How so? All signs point to Intelligent design... the universe through entropy actually prefers complexity which speaks volumes in itself...
Entropy is within the entire system. Locally, heat energy can be collected to make more 'useful' energy. The point is, any collection involves a net loss of useful energy in the entire system.

Not only is the earth, and even the solar system, not a closed system, but also your notions of 'complexity' do not necessarily correspond with the concept of 'useful energy', or 'energy which can be used to do work' - and THIS is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is about.

Quote Originally Posted by Jeff777 View Post
I don't subscribe to the belief that we are just a "cosmic accident" so I think it will be interesting to watch, kudos to Ben Stein.
It's not an 'accident' if it follows physical laws...